How can we be sure? They ALWAYS do! We have blogged about this board before. Their name should be the ‘Say Yes to BigWind’ board. There has NEVER been even one instance when the board has sided with the people of Ohio. Have they been bribed or infiltrated by BigWind? It certainly appears so…..
Champaign County officials and a handful of townships are opposing a proposal to extend deadlines to begin construction on a controversial Buckeye Wind farm before a possible decision expected later this week.
Members of the Ohio Power Siting Board could decide as early as Thursday whether to extend certificates needed to build the project. The Champaign County commissioners, along with trustees from Goshen, Union and Wayne Twps., recently filed briefs asking the state to take no action to extend the deadlines until a hearing is scheduled and the state provides an opportunity for public comment.
If the certificates are not extended, it’s possible the developer would have to restart the lengthy application process for the project. Attorneys for Everpower Wind Holdings, the developer, argued the projects have been fought in the courts for about eight years, which has created the need for an extensio0n…..
But attorneys representing Champaign County and Goshen Twp. recently argued the developers have had opportunities to begin construction in recent years but have not done so. Instead, they argue, the developers have sought to make changes to the projects and are now seeking an extension just two months before they are set to expire.
Attorneys for the county also argued that extending construction deadlines would also mean tougher setbacks should be applied to the turbines in the project’s footprint. The Champaign County projects were among the earliest approved in the state, before lawmakers imposed tougher requirements for how far turbines in more recent projects should be from neighboring properties.
County attorneys also argue that the two phases of the project have always been considered as separate, independent projects and to extend the deadlines for both “undermines the spirit of the application and hearing process and the requirement to protect the public interest.”…
This is a very comprehensive study, investigating individuals from all over the USA, regarding the negative effects of living in the shadow of BigWind…
A six-month GateHouse Media investigation found that wind developers representing some of the world’s biggest energy companies divide communities and disrupt the lives of residents forced to live in the shadow of their industrial wind farms.
Reporters interviewed more than 70 families living near three dozen current or proposed wind farms. They also spoke to 10 state and local lawmakers, read hundreds of pages of public-service-commission records about wind projects, reviewed court filings in seven wind-related lawsuits and inspected lease agreements from at least eight wind farms.
GateHouse Media also identified through public documents and media reports an additional 400 families living near industrial wind turbines that have publicly complained about shadow flicker, noise, health problems and/or misleading statements by wind companies in an effort to solicit land agreements.
The investigation found that companies convince landowners to sign away their property rights for generations based on the promise of potential profits and the minimization of potential problems associated with wind turbines.
Those problems include shadow flicker, loud noises and low-frequency vibrations that have driven dozens of families from their homes. Many of them claim to have suffered serious health issues from the turbines before departing. Some say they’ll never be the same.
The wind industry has known about these issues for years – many of its contracts contain clauses acknowledging these effects – but it denies turbines affect human health, even as complaints mount nationwide.
Landowners often overlook potential problems until it’s too late. Many who sign contracts can’t terminate the agreements, even if they later beg for relief from what they deem intolerable living conditions. Some covenants bar people from suing or even publicly criticizing the projects.
Those who don’t sign agreements can face the same impact of living near wind turbines erected on neighboring properties. But they receive no compensation for the shadow flicker, noises and vibrations…
Wind developers have settled more than a half-dozen such cases nationwide, even while admitting no wrongdoing. Among the companies to settle is Michigan-based Consumers Energy, which owns Lake Winds Energy Park. The Shineldeckers were among several neighbors who sued the company…
Proposed wind projects also have fractured rural communities across America, pitting neighbor against neighbor in fights over property rights and money.
Many worry about the impact these turbines will have on their homes – some families interviewed have moved out of their houses after wind farms started operating; others have stayed but suffer from shadow flicker, noises and vibrations.
Elected officials tasked with voting on these developments have, in many cases, signed their own contracts with the wind companies, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.
Among the investigation’s findings:
• Despite a growing chorus of complaints, the wind industry has expanded largely unopposed. Ten years ago, less than 300 industrial wind farms dotted the U.S. landscape. Today, more than 1,000 exist. Much of the growth has been funded by American taxpayers. Billions of dollars in state and federal incentives have made wind farms so profitable that companies are racing to develop them before the handouts disappear.
• Industrial wind turbines generate countless complaints nationwide about sleep disturbances, migraines, nausea, ear pressure, blurred vision, tinnitus and heart palpitations. Rampant reports about such effects from the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin, prompted the local Board of Health to declare the turbines a human health hazard.
• Wind industry officials have denounced people who complain about these symptoms, calling them misinformed or “anti-wind.” Some wind companies offer money or other concessions to frequent complainers, often in exchange for silence and a waiver for turbine-related claims. “I call it a shut-up clause,” said Jim Miller of South Dakota, who refused to sign such an agreement with Florida-based NextEra.
• Wind developers have used what some landowners describe as misleading tactics to get their contracts signed. Attorneys asked to review several such contracts called them one-sided, giving wind companies sweeping control over people’s property with few rights for the landowner.
• Wind farms have divided communities across America. Contracted landowners eyeing profits spar with neighbors opposing turbines near their backyards. Lifelong friendships can end. Families sometimes fray. Hopkinton, New York, resident Janice Pease said she stopped talking to relatives who support a proposed wind farm in their town. Pease adamantly opposes it.
WIND INDUSTRY DENIES CLAIMS
GateHouse Media reached out to seven wind energy companies, including some of the nation’s largest, and two nonprofit groups that support the wind industry. Those representatives denied almost all of the investigation’s findings.
Every wind industry official interviewed said that relatively few people complain about wind turbines compared to the thousands of Americans living peacefully among the structures.
“We have 1,300 turbines in operation across the United States,” said Duke Energy spokeswoman Tammie McGee. Except for one wind farm in Wisconsin, “we don’t see these types of complaints at our other turbines.”
Many of the people who do complain, several representatives said, are well-known among industry insiders and comprise a small but vocal group of anti-wind activists…
When asked about the studies that do establish a link, those same wind officials disputed the validity of those papers and the credentials of the researchers…
People might be annoyed by wind turbines, several wind representatives said. But they’re not getting sick from them…
Rather than divide communities, they said their projects improve the lives of all residents. Some towns hold festivals commemorating their wind farms. Enyo Renewable Energy Principal Christine Mikell mentioned the Wind Fest in Spanish Fork, Utah, which hosts a nine-turbine wind farm.
“We have hundreds of landowners who are pleased to have us come to their communities,” said Bryan Garner of Florida-based NextEnergy Resources, the biggest wind energy producer in America with more than 100 wind farms…
Communities can also benefit financially from wind farms. The construction of these multi-million-dollar projects employs hundreds of temporary workers and adds new, taxable revenue to local and state coffers…
FORCED TO MOVE
As the wind industry continues to expand, so do its critics.
Hundreds of residents nationwide have claimed industrial wind turbines make them sick. Several families say the structures have forced them from their homes…
“People don’t give up their homes for no reason,” Ed Hobart said, responding to claims the symptoms were all in his head. “It had financial and emotional and health impacts on me and my wife that we will never be fully recovered from.”…
When the sun passes behind those blades, it creates a strobe-like phenomenon called shadow flicker that can disorient and nauseate those forced to live with it….
But even as complaints mount across the nation, the wind industry steadfastly denies turbines impact human health.
“We are aware of some of the cases where individuals come to believe that wind turbines are the cause of their health concerns, and we feel great sympathy for anyone who is suffering from illness of any kind,” said Dahvi Wilson of Apex Clean Energy, which owns several wind farms nationwide.
But, Wilson said, science doesn’t support their claims. And until it does, the company will continue to build wind farms based on current best practices.
The wind industry frequently cites a 2014 Health Canada study that found no direct association between health problems and wind turbines. The study involved more than 1,200 residents in 18 wind farms.
But the same study also found wind turbines “highly annoy” about one in 10 people, especially those living closest to the structures and those exposed to turbine noises exceeding 35 decibels.
That annoyance is “statistically related” to reports of migraines, tinnitus, dizziness and high blood pressure….
Researchers using low-frequency meters have found a link between wind turbines and “sensations of uneasiness and personal disturbance,” as well as “extreme pressure” and “headache or nausea or dizziness.”
One of the first to do this was Neil Kelley, a now-retired scientist from the National Wind Technology Center in Denver. The U.S. Department of Energy and NASA hired Kelley three decades ago to investigatecomplaints about their wind turbine near Boone, North Carolina.
Kelley and his colleagues determined after extensive testing that “the annoyance was real and not imagined,” the result of acoustic impulses.
Kelley did not return calls for comment.
LIKE MOTION SICKNESS
These acoustic impulses – or low-frequency sound waves – stimulate parts of the inner ear responsible for balance, motion and spatial orientation and that they provoke symptoms similar to motion sickness, some researchers say.
“If you’re sitting still and something is causing the same fluids to move, your brain doesn’t know that it’s a false signal,” said Rick James, an acoustical engineer who has written papers on the subject. “But you open your eyes and say, ‘I’m sitting still, but I feel like I’m moving.’”
The Minnesota Department of Health noted the phenomenon in 2009 paper. It found low-frequency waves cause more problems inside a house than outside because, rather than block the pulsations, the walls amplify them.
Darlene Mueller wept as she described how turbines in the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, sickened her inside her home…
DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD
But some wind farm residents who spoke out about their problems said the industry belittles them. It dismisses their complaints as unfounded or labels them troublemakers, multiple people said.
It has silenced many of their neighbors whom they said suffer the same symptoms but fear the consequences of speaking out…
After Cary Shineldecker went public about his experience in Michigan’s Lake Winds Energy Park, an energy company executive singled him out at a meeting several states away.
Mike Blazer of Chicago-based Invenergy claimed to know Shineldecker’s medical history. He told a crowd in Clear Lake, South Dakota, that Shineldecker’s health woes stemmed from alcohol use, obstructive sleep apnea and an irregular heartbeat – not wind turbines…
Shineldecker said he was stunned to learn about the incident from an attorney who attended the meeting. He said he has neither sleep apnea nor alcohol problems and never received a diagnosis for those problems.
“All I ever had to go on was my integrity and honesty and work ethic,” Shineldecker said, “and then to be belittled and treated like some whack-job psycho liar is kind of unbelievable.”
Iowa wind farm resident Terry McGovern said he faced disparagement by Apex Clean Energy.
The Virginia-based company accused McGovern of holding “a personal anti-wind agenda” and claimed he would spread misinformation and generate unfounded fear of wind energy ahead of a public presentation he gave.
Apex made the claims in a July 2017 letter it sent to landowners discouraging them from attending the presentation, held near the site of its proposed Upland Prairie Wind farm in northwest Iowa.
McGovern denies holding an anti-wind agenda but is publicly critical of the industry and its business practices. His Iowa Wind Action Group calls for greater setbacks for industrial turbines to protect human health.
“Instead of focusing on the issues, they try to discredit the person,” McGovern said. “That way, they can avoid talking about the facts.”..
How many of you use Amazon to purchase your Christmas items? Amazon has put up a smokescreen by agreeing to purchase the power from this new industrial wind site. They can not operate their data centers on wind energy, alone, and they refuse to build an industrial wind energy site on their own property. Instead, like cowards, they connect electrical lines to an upgraded station, near their new data site, and then agree to purchase intermittent power that is produced hundreds of miles away….
On Facebook, Fight the Wind
Yesterday at 2:32pm ·
A trusted source had a meeting with Jason Dagger recently and reported the following:
• EverPower still may build between 1-9 turbines in Logan County, WITHOUT a PILOT. If you recall, EverPower said they would not build in Logan County without a PILOT because it didn’t make financial sense. Jason is now stating that the state has given them better clarification on the taxing structure and it looks like they will be OK to build in LC. (EverPower is still permitted to build up to 19 turbines in Logan County.)
• If you also recall, EverPower has stated all along they want to be a ‘good neighbor’. Logan County and its residents clearly did not and do not want turbines in Logan County as evidenced by the denial of the PILOT. How can EverPower be a good neighbor and still build? Jason’s response was: ‘It’s about the money; all the power in Hardin County has been sold, the turbines in Logan County would be for profit.’
• When asked if EverPower would be alerting non-participating neighboring residents whether they would be notified of the possibility of turbine construction, Jason’s response was: ‘Why would we do that?’
• Jason is also stating they no longer need a Road Use Maintenance Agreement in Logan County since they are now only coming off of state routes.
• And the kicker….after years of EverPower touting the local jobs this project would create, Jason said they had narrowed down two general contractors for the job. Who are they? White Construction from Indiana and Mortenson Construction out of Denver, Colorado. How is that for local?…
The Doctor is “In” – that is, the Spin Doctors of industrial wind. This past week the Spin Doctors were busy in their emergency rooms using the tools of their profession: truthiness (half truths) , proofiness, cherry-picking, fear mongering, false choices, weasel words and euphemism to save their hides.
“Spin (which is actually propaganda from a military perspective) is making us blind to what is happening. Being blind, we let our governments and big corporations get away with doing things that are unjust and to the detriment of the economy of the ordinary people and detrimental to democracy. Spin has been and continues to be used to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public.” http://www.truthliesdeceptioncoverups.info/2013/05/spotting-spin-some-tricks-of-trade.html
Reply comments on wind siting rules were submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board on November 8th. The Mid-American Renewable Energy Coalition and the Ohio Environmental Council took shots at GNU and UNU and vice versa. We were dumbfounded by the spinning served up by the windies and enviros. Dizzy! Take some Dramamine and visit the link, below, to read all of the reply comments. We will share some spin highlights….
Ø Cherry-Picking & Truthiness: “MAREC believes the Board should apply wind energy standards that are consistent with neighboring United States jurisdictions, rather than adopting rules from foreign nations whose rural landscapes and population densities are vastly different than in those areas where wind farms are proposed in Ohio. A cursory review of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan wind energy ordinances establishes that Ohio’s guidelines are already more restrictive than counties where wind farms both have and have not been built.”
MAREC lists four “cherry-picked” Indiana setback examples and suggests Ohio should emulate them. Yet, a more comprehensive list of 12 other Indiana counties reflects that 5 ban industrial wind facilities outright and five establish setbacks from property lines. The Indiana property line setbacks range from 1,300’ to 3,960’ (¾ mile). The two counties that measure from the residence have setbacks of 2640’ and 1,500’ from a non-participant residence. Our Indiana list also shows MAREC’s information about Tipton County is factually incorrect. Tipton revised their setbacks in July to 2640’ from residence, 1500’ from the property line within the Prairie Breeze development area and 1460’ from property line in the rest of the county.
If MAREC wants OPSB to apply wind energy standards “consistent with neighboring United States jurisdictions,” they would have to agree to enabling Ohio counties to ban industrial wind facilities outright as five Indiana Counties have done; establish setbacks from property lines as five counties have done; or lengthen setbacks from the residence as two have done. We recommend that readers use the MAREC chart and the Indiana list which reveals the dishonesty of MAREC when visiting with your local elected officials both at the state and county levels.
Ø Proofiness: Outight lying with numbers to mislead; quoting statistics out of context so that they mislead; distorting statistics; or using incorrect logic in order to mislead the audience.
“ It is MAREC’s view that the Board should acknowledge the original setback regulations “worked” considering there are nearly zero sound or shadow flicker complaints against the two existing wind farms in Ohio with over 5 years in operation. The Board should not adopt sound and shadow flicker impact setbacks from property lines.” (MAREC reply Page 3) In this instance, MAREC is deceptive because the wind leases and “good neighbor agreements” contain gag clauses that forbid landowners from complaining. This was recently reconfirmed in Hardin County when an EverPower representative peddling a good neighbor agreement advised that they would be free to complain but only to EverPower. Wind developers contractually suppress complaints and then defend their practices based on the assertion that there are “no complaints.” SPIN!
Similarly, MAREC asserts at page 15 of their reply that “Trade secrets: UNU argues an applicant should be required to submit to staff any post-certificate evaluation of shadow flicker impacts, including all supporting documentation; however, this information should not be protected by trade secret. MAREC disagrees – trade secret information should be protected in accordance with the statute.” Whether it is bird kills or shadow flicker intrusion, the wind industry works to manipulate or hide information that may be damaging to them and then relies on “proofiness” to spin their argument.
More general “proofiness” was revealed this week in the industry publication, Wind Watch, when the statistics used to assert public support for wind were exposed as misleading. “Seventy-seven percent of Trump supporters want more wind farms, but 69% want more coal mines, 66% want more offshore drilling, 58% want more fracking, and 55% want more nuclear. Trump supporters want wind farms, but that is only because they want more electricity whatever source it comes from. Whether it is ‘clean’ or ‘dirty’ doesn’t seem to matter. The research also does not specify how much new wind capacity they would want, so they may only want a tiny amount.”
UNU’s Reply at page 14 states “Initially, MAREC objects to the Board’s use of the term “noise” and asks the Board to use only the term “sound,” contending that “noise” has “a negative connotation that indicates loud, harsh, or disturbing sound.” But make no mistake about it, the sounds imposed on the public by wind turbines are loud, harsh, and disturbing. The semantic niceties offered by the wind industry cannot disguise that fact. Acoustic engineers define “noise” as “unwanted sound.” Since no one desires the sounds from a wind turbine, not even the turbine’s host landowner, “noise” is the most appropriate term for turbine emissions in this rule.
We direct the reader’s attention to the timely article from Columbus Business First reporting that Ohio State University has been engaged in a research project called “Sounds of New York.” In this instance, the sound is not just “noise” but “noise pollution”. Whether one is in a quiet rural area or in a bustling urban environment, there is a point at which the increase in “sound” is unwanted and harmful. Important to note, also, is that human complaint data is considered to be important in understanding and responding to the problem. OSU acknowledges complaint data can “provide reliable information to support decision making”. But OOPS! Here we go back to “Proofiness”! In New York, complaint information is essential to addressing a problem while the wind industry hides complaint information and dares the public to disprove their “proof” that there are no complaints about noise or shadow flicker.
We could go on and on. Our message to all is EYES WIDE OPEN. Understand the tricks of spin and help your community to SEE how wind propaganda is being deployed to BLIND them to the truth….
In the Matter of the Ohio Power Siting Board’s Review of Rule 4906-4-08 of the Ohio Administrative Code.
Industry Code: GE-GAS & ELECTRIC
Purpose Code: BRO-Rule promulgation
Date Opened: 5/18/2016
1 – 15 of 30 documents 1 / 2 First Previous Next Last
Date Filed Summary Pages
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. 14
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of The Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. 34
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation electronically filed by Amy M Milam on behalf of Ohio Farm Bureau Federation 7
11/08/2016 Reply Comments electronically filed by Mr. Christopher A. Walker on behalf of Union Neighbors United and Johnson, Julia F. Ms. and McConnell, Robert Mr. and McConnell, Diane Mrs. 44
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of the Ohio Environmental Council on Review of Rule 4906-04-08 and Proposed OAC 4906-4-09, Case No. 16-1109-GE-BRO electronically filed by Ms. Miranda R. Leppla on behalf of Ohio Environmental Council. 10
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of 6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC electronically filed by Teresa Orahood on behalf of Sally W. Bloomfield. 33
11/08/2016 Reply Comments of Greenwich Neighbors United electronically filed by Mr. Samuel C. Randazzo on behalf of Greenwich Neighbors United. 17
11/07/2016 Reply Comment electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of Ms. Katie Elsasser. 4
11/07/2016 Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of Mr. Gary Biglin. 2
11/04/2016 Reply to Initial Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of State Sen. Bill Seitz. 3
11/01/2016 Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of State Sen. Bill Seitz 33
10/28/2016 Comments electronically filed by Mr. Matt Butler on behalf of Ohio State Historic Preservation Office, Ohio History Connection (SHPO) 3
10/24/2016 Initial Comments electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Mid-Atlantic Renewable Energy Coalition. 30
10/24/2016 Comments filed on behalf of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. electronically filed by Terrence O’Donnell on behalf of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc. 8
10/24/2016 Comments of 6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC electronically filed by Teresa Orahood on behalf of Sally W. Bloomfield. 9…..
By the time the next edition of Wind News is published, the election will be over and everyone will be sorting through the results to derive meaning. Election Day is the due date for Reply Comments to the Ohio Power Siting Board’s draft rules. The General Assembly will swing into its year-end session and tackle the mandate freeze while developers will press to revise property line setbacks. On the national level, wind developers will be racing to secure full access to the federal Production Tax Credit before December 31st. One thing feels certain with the election of Clinton…wind turbines could spread like a wildfire across our great lands.
One of the races we will be watching is in Vermont where Iberdrola is trying to buy an election by promising to pay residents of two towns where the Stiles Brook Wind Project is proposed to be built. “ Iberdrola has said such benefits are common at its energy projects. But Stiles Brook opponents cried foul, equating the partnership payments to a bribe.” The Vermont Secretary of State, Jim Condos, asserts “In a democracy, a ballot item should pass or fail on its own merits and not because of cash incentives.” He worries that payment offers “could conceivably invite a bidding war between competing ‘partnerships’ on every controversial ballot item.” “There is what’s legal and there is what’s right, and those are not always the same thing,” Condos wrote.”
In other campaign news, we were amused by the Midwest Energy News story – Midwest is published by RE-AMP whose members include The League of Conservation Voters and Ohio Environmental Council. The article whines about the campaign spending by fossil fuel groups as opposed to the penniless greenies who just want a better world (albeit one presumably without heat or light). When the LCV announced earlier this year that it would coordinate efforts in Ohio with the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters said, “Our environment should not be a partisan issue, and preserving it should not be controversial.” We juxtapose this story with one from Energy and Environment News headlined: Green groups spend over $100M; LCV hits record level. “In a separate announcement, the Sierra Club revealed today that major environmental organizations — including itself, LCV, NextGen Climate Action, EDF Action, the NRDC Action Fund and Environment America — expect to spend more than $100 million on the 2016 cycle.” We suspect a vast left-wing conspiracy.
Following the money, there has been recent press accounts of Amazon’s purchase of the Scioto Ridge project in Hardin County developed by EverPower. We thought it might be good to reflect on this for a moment as we think about where Governor Kasich stands with respect to the renewable mandate. We know that Amazon’s cloud computing operations use an enormous amount of power and they seek to comfort the green crowd by offsetting their power use with renewables, and specifically wind. What was Amazon’s price for locating in Ohio? Many claim Amazon insists on access to renewable power and perhaps Kasich promised to support the mandate so that Amazon could appease the green lobby. What would Kasich get in return? According to press reports in 2015, Amazon’s location in Ohio would cause all Ohioans to be subject to sales tax on any purchases made through Amazon.com. “Amazon said it estimates it will collect between $150 million and $300 million annually in Ohio sales taxes that are currently the responsibility of consumers to keep track of and pay.” Given that Ohio sales tax revenue has been lagging, that is probably a big deal to the Gov. Ohio also provided $81 million in incentives to Amazon. Too bad the folks in Hardin County had to subsidize Amazon’s electric bill, too.
A million here, a million there and pretty soon you are talking about money. “AEP American Electric Power Company Inc. plans to spend $1 billion on the renewable energy business, in part with funds from the sale of some Ohio power plants. The Columbus-based electric utility is dipping its toe in the sector, as it expects a capital outlay of $17.3 billion from 2017 to 2019, AEP said Tuesday.” “It has formed two related subsidiaries, one that focuses on smaller-scale wind and solar projects and the other focused on larger projects. AEP Onsite Partners is a “behind-the-meter” company, contracting with, for example, a grocery story that wants solar panels on its roof. Customers include schools, hospitals and businesses.” “AEP Renewables is in charge of what AEP CEO Nick Akins describes as “utility-scale” projects. These are the wind and solar farms whose power output is sold via long-term power purchase agreements to other utilities, cities and corporations that demand their businesses run on clean energy.” We’ll take solar, please.
But our favorite for the week is the idiotic letter to the Dispatch Editor from the Ohio Christian Coalition in support of renewable energy and “reworking wind-turbine setback limits.” Perhaps we could introduce these Christians to Moses and the Ten Commandments. We are thinking specifically of the 10th Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.” If nothing else, wind developers covet the homes, yards, fields and skies of non-participating landowners, known in their own Agreements as “Good Neighbors”….
Thursday November 3, 2016 5:00 AM
Conservative leadership from Gov. John Kasich and the General Assembly has produced a business-friendly, job-creating environment in Ohio. I was encouraged to read the Oct. 24 Dispatch.com article, “Report: State support of clean energy could add jobs, cut consumer costs.” The article outlined the economic benefits that clean energy will provide to the Ohio economy.
A striking statistic included the claim that Ohio stands to add enough clean energy jobs to fill Ohio Stadium by 2030 should the General Assembly do the responsible thing and come to a common-sense, “all-of-the-above” energy solution for Ohio.
Conservatives should always be in favor of creating jobs and cutting costs, and that is exactly what a conservative approach to clean-energy reform can provide for millions of Ohioans.
So what does conservative clean energy reform look like? The Ohio Christian Coalition is joining conservatives from around Ohio to advocate for increasing the use of renewable energy by 5 percent in the next five years and reworking wind-turbine setback limits.
Common-sense, conservative energy reform is a winning issue for conservatives across Ohio.
Ohio Christian Coalition
In Ohio, BigWind such as Avangrid (formerly Iberdrola in Van Wert), Apex and Everpower INSIST on a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) deal -or else- they refuse to build. This occurred in Logan county, when the PILOT was refused by the county commissioners…Everpower, said ‘see ya’. Hmmm, the story below makes you question whether or not that is actually true. Why? Apparently, BigWind CAN afford to bribe residents. If you can afford to not only bribe residents, but also INcrease your so-called-donations to communities/projects, then can’t you afford taxes? We don’t know about you, but we would LOVE to DONATE money to various causes and NOT PAY TAXES, too…..
Opponents of the Stiles Brook Wind Project say the developer’s attempt to sweeten the deal for towns ahead of Election Day amounts to buying votes.
This week, Spanish renewable energy producer Iberdrola sweetened the pot for residents of Windam and Grafton by increasing payouts to the two towns and allotting Windham residents a personal annual payment of $1,162 per voter….
“Setting aside a large pot of money that is promised to registered voters, only if the vote on November 8th goes Iberdrola’s way, seems to me to fit the definition of a bribe,” Nancy Tips, a spokesperson for the opposition group Friends of Windham, said in a statement….
Though Iberdrola also reduced the proposed wind farm from 28 turbines to 24, it would still be the largest wind turbine project in Vermont. Iberdola said the reduction was a response to community feedback and showed the company’s respect of residents’ voices.
In the new compensation proposal for Windham, Iberdrola would hand over annual payments of $150,000 for local volunteer programs, charities, or scholarships. The company would also pay $395,000 in property taxes — a figure over half the town’s budget. A supplemental payment of $105,000 would go to the town, and $350,000 would be allocated to registered voters.
No breakdown of Grafton’s compensation is yet available, but it too is increasing, from $285,000 annually to $500,000….
Both groups have approached the Attorney General’s office to investigate whether Iberdrola’s proposal is legal.
Anna Vesely, co-director of Grafton Woodlands Group, says Iberdrola’s corporate tactics to pressure voters are “outrageous.”…
“Not only does this scheme reek of unethical payoffs, undue influence on the upcoming vote, and general big corporation deceit, but let’s not forget the irreversible environmental impact and devastation to 5,000 acres of pristine Vermont ridgeline forest,” said Windham property owner Dan Carluccio.
“In the end it’s the people of Windham, Grafton and other nearby towns who will suffer, regardless of the money factors. In essence, we are the losers. The real winners will be Iberdrola, Meadowsend Timberlands and whichever big city gets the power generated by this senseless project. Surely it will not benefit the people living in the shadow of the 500-foot wind turbines.”
In Ohio, BigWind is/has building/proposing projects that consume, on average 16,000 acres each. Now, if we look at Blue Creek, alone, there are 152 turbines. 16,000 divided by 152 is 105 acres/turbine. Obviously, each turbine does not take up 105 acres, but when you include setbacks, homes, roadways, communities, etc. AWEA is blatantly WRONG. You canNOT extrapolate acreage based on the actual, physical consumption of land by the industrial wind turbine. According to Ohio’s average land consumption of 16,000 acres, our math shows that the AWEA assumption needs to be revised to be multiplied by 141!! In this case, the mass of Rhode Island x 141 = 169,200 square miles…LARGER THAN THE SIZE OF CALIFORNIA. And, does this actually power America? NO, because we need MORE coal and MORE gas to ‘backup’ the intermittency of the turbines….
…The Supreme Court put a hold on enforcement of the plan in February to allow legal challenges to it to be resolved in court. If the Court of Appeals rules that the government can legally enforcement the plan, the country will have to start using a lot more renewable energy (like wind and solar) — and much less coal — by the year 2030.
Part of the plan calls for the creation of incentives to encourage states to build wind farms. Though the US invested $14.5 billion in wind-power project installations last year, wind farms still provide less than 5% of the nation’s energy, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
But what would a US powered only by wind actually look like?
To answer that question, AWEA’s manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines.
In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, because wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced….